David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I endorse that contribution from my colleague, Senator Pocock. It is hard to comprehend why this special rule is being rolled out only in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. I'd urge the Senate to also endorse the position put by Senator Pocock.

I also rise to speak to the referral of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill. When we proposed referring this bill to inquiry, we were told that there was a rule that we didn't refer these treaty related bills off to inquiry. There's some rule. We've been hunting for that rule, just like the rule that you can't bring the United States alliance into domestic politics, which is a rule we were told about by Senator Wong the other day. We've been hunting for that rule, and we can't find that rule either. When we were looking for the rule that says you can't question the United States alliance or decisions made by people with gold braid in dark, smoky rooms, we couldn't find that rule written down anywhere either. Now we're told that there's a rule that says, 'No, this is an AUKUS related bill that's going to give some tariff relief to UK weapons manufacturers under the so-called Geelong treaty.'

Apparently, there's a rule somewhere—I'm not sure where—that we can't refer this off to an inquiry either. Well, we've hunted for those rules, and, apparently, those rules are only given to you if you go on a CIA funded fact-finding education trip to Washington. None of the Greens have been on those CIA funded fact-finding trips to Washington, so we haven't got a copy of the rule book that both Labor and the coalition have that says you actually can't investigate or look at these AUKUS related, United States alliance related bills.

Not being in possession of the rule book that's been given to Labor and the coalition, we're moving that this bill go off for an actual inquiry. Why should it go off for an inquiry? It should go off for an inquiry because the Geelong treaty is like a fairytale or a dystopian Minister Marles Disneyland tale. It suggests we're going to have a 50-year-long partnership with the United Kingdom to produce nuclear submarines for Australia. The UK can't keep their own submarines in the water! Last time I checked, I think they had one out of five in the water, and that was only allowed to go out to get the bows wet and then come back again. Their own auditor has said that they can't produce nuclear reactors and won't produce nuclear reactors for the AUKUS project. They can't deal with their own nuclear waste. They've got dozens of rusting hulks of their former nuclear submarines, chock-a-block with tonnes and tonnes of highly enriched uranium, just sitting there in ponds because they don't know what to do with them. They're spending billions of dollars a year keeping an eye on their rusting hulks. The UK is the sick person of Europe when it comes to defence expenditure. They literally can't keep their own defence force running. They can't put an aircraft carrier in the water, because they can't surround it with protection. They can't put their nuclear submarines in the water, because they can't maintain them. They can't build a new nuclear reactor, because they haven't got the money and Rolls-Royce, who Australia is giving billions of dollars to, won't produce a reactor.

We say we should look into this before we sign another treaty. What the war parties of Labor and the coalition say is, 'Actually, no, there's a rule. There's a rule, and you can't look into this.' They've got a CIA based rule book that we haven't got access to. Well, we say: bugger the rule book; we want this to go to an inquiry.